California Supreme Court Watch

#21-562 Haggerty v. Thornton, S271483. (D078049; 68 Cal.App.5th 1003; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2019-00028694-PR-TR-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order in a probate proceeding. This case presents the following issue: Can a trust be modified according to the statutory procedures for revocation of a trust (Prob. Code, § 15401) if the trust instrument itself sets forth identical procedures for modification and revocation?

Review granted: 12/22/2021

Case fully briefed: 7/20/2022

Cause argued and submitted: 12/05/2023

Opinion filed: Judgment affirmed in full: 2/08/2024

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Haggerty v. Thornton (2024) 15 Cal.5th 729.)

“This case concerns the methods for modifying a revocable trust. Section 15402 of the Probate Code states that ‘[u]nless the trust instrument provides otherwise, . . . the settlor may modify the trust by the procedure for revocation.’ (Prob. Code, § 15402; all undesignated statutory references are to this code.) Section 15401 sets out the procedures for revocation: Trusts may be revoked by complying with any method provided in the trust instrument. (§ 15401, subd. (a)(1).) If the trust instrument explicitly makes that method exclusive, then the trust may be revoked only in that manner. (§ 15401, subd. (a)(2).) If not, then the trust may also be revoked by the statutory method — ‘a writing, other than a will, signed by the settlor or any other person holding the power of revocation and delivered to the trustee during the lifetime of the settlor or the person holding the power of revocation.’ (Ibid.)

It is undisputed that if the trust instrument is silent on modification, the trust may be modified in the same manner in which it could be revoked, either via the statutory method or via any revocation method provided in the trust instrument. In this case, we consider the circumstances under which the statutory method is available for modification if the trust instrument specifies a method for modification. We hold that under section 15402, a trust may be modified via the section 15401 procedures for revocation, including the statutory method, unless the trust instrument provides a method of modification and explicitly makes it exclusive, or otherwise expressly precludes the use of revocation procedures for modification.”

…

Disapproving King v. Lynch (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1186; Balistreri v. Balistreri (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 511; Diaz v. Zuniga (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 916; Pena v. Dey (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 546; Conservatorship of Irvine (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1334; and Haggerty v. Thornton (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1003, “to the extent that they are inconsistent with this holding.”

Justice Liu authored the opinion of the Court, in which Acting Chief Justice Kruger and Justices Corrigan, Groban, Jenkins, Evans, and Poochigian* concurred.